Talk:Elizabeth I/@comment-81.105.174.112-20150508130804/@comment-92.10.66.176-20150630175836
Oh, please. Don't be ridiculous. The History Channel is not worth it's name. So, if you are basing your views on documentaries on that channel you might as well think crop circles were created by ancient aliens and Hitler's Gold is located under the Eiffel Tower. I am currently doing my PHD on Elizabeth, so I know the facts/evidence of her Reign pretty much as well as ayone. The simple fact is she was a far greater and more succesful Queen than Mary. You have to bend over backwards and ignore all evidence to make the reverse true. Simply put - a woman who could not keep control of Scotland for ten years is not fit for the far harder job of governing the more internationally significant/ administratively complex England. Elizabeth wasn't perfect, she could be indecisive, but, that was because she liked to work out every eventuality before she made a move, like a chess player. This sometimes meant she missed out on oppourtunities, but, she also saved England from walking headlong into pointless and expensive conflicts. Henry VIII had sent England into massive debt because of his fruitless wars with France and Scotland at the end of his reign and Elizabeth was determined not to waste money on simialr pointless endeavours. Which is why she wasn't as quick to get involved in things. But, it did ultimately end in a period of signifcant peace for England. In terms of English/British involement in oversees/inner conflicts, Elizabeth's reign remains one of the most peaceful periods in English history. Nor were her religious settlements perfect and she did have to become more punitive as time went on. However, in terms of violence and death as a result of religious divisions. Elizabeth has the best record of pretty much all the major rulers of Europe at that time. Around 180 people died as a result of religious conflict in England during Elizabeth's reign. Between 400,000 - 600,000 people died in France during the same period as a result of religious divisions. More people were hung in front of Mary and Francis on hooks as retribution for the Amboise plot (1,500) for example and that's only one incident. Add to that, despite some thorny issues, Elizabeth's settlements ultimately created the basis for the Church of England as it would be finally formed. A church that still exists till this day, so they ultimately have to be considered a success. You are deeply misinformed if you think Elizabeth couldn't control her government. Yes, sometimes her advisers/parliament did things without her knowledge/approval. But, I'll let you into a little secret - that happend to every single monarch. Hey, it still happening to every major leader around the world today. It kind of comes with the territory if you are trying to rule via a parliament. There is backroom dealings and sometimes it helps not to let the leader know what's going on straight away. But, Elizabeth did have good control of her politicians. Her reforms to the parliamentary process are hugely important to English history. It's why they put a staue of her up in the Houses of Parliament a few years ago. I really have no idea what you're talking about when you say took revenge on people. Who? Elizabeth had a temper, but, she often removed her personal feelings from her politics. She came down hard on some people, but, this was usually for political/conformity reasons. She isn't known for going at people for no reason. Also, saying History is written by the winners is so redundant. Yes, history is written by the winners. But, at the same time the winners are the winners for a reason. There is not a single credible working historian who thinks Mary Stuart of all people was the answer to Europe's problems during the latter half og the 16th Century. Certainly not at the expense of Elizabeth. I would love for you to list the names of these supposed historians. If you are going to list the likes of Childs, Loades and Guy - who are more critical of Elizabeth than most. Then you are wilfully misinterpreting what they say. They do not advicate for Mary despite being more critical of Elizabeth. Mary was a poor monarch who destroyed her own adminstration through her poor personal and political choices. I would suggest you perhaps you read excellent work on Elizabeth done by the likes of Kate Maltby, Anne Sommerset, Kate Williams, David Starkey, etc etc Also, do you actually understand why Elizabeth's reign is so significant? It has nothing to do with Europe. Europe's not the point The whole point of Elizabeth's reign is the pull away from the rest of Europe and England's increasing involvement in North American, Asian and Caribbean. For better or worse, Elizabeth's reign marks the foundation of the British Empire. Which had and continues to have huge impact on the makeup of the world we now know.